3 ms·

I didn't read the original article completely but your reply is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: Positions you don't agree with, are "no true Libertarian" pos

I didn't read the original article completely but your reply is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: Positions you don't agree with, are "no true Libertarian" positions. But how do you know what all Libertarians truly believe? For instance, you say: "The real Libertarian point is that we should have only the laws that are absolutely necessary to keep society functioning." This sounds fine. However, this is so general that probably even, say, a Marxist would agree. He would just not agree on what "functioning" means or what particular laws are indeed necessary. One could argue that even apes have functioning sociaties and they have no laws that we know of. Is this the ideal we as humans should therefore establish? It would fit your definition as well. Also, your argument that the government "returns significantly less wealth back to the economy due to waste" is weak, for you don't know what value the returning money creates. That might easily trade-off any existing "waste". For instance, what value is created when streets are build by the government? What value was created by the ARPANet investments in the Internet technology? That's the problem with political ideals: One often defends one's own ideals althought one doens't really know what they mean.

jdminhbg 18y ago
> I didn't read the original article completely but your reply is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: Positions you don't agree with, are "no true Libertarian" positions. Is there such a thing as a Meta No True Scotsman Fallacy? If I say "George Bush proves Communism is a failure," is it ok for someone to point out that George Bush is not a communist? You can play the "No True Scotsman!" game forever, but at some point, words and ideologies have meanings. The linked article does not accurately reflect current mainstream (or otherwise) libertarian thought, and the parent poster is correct to point that out.
- cschwarm 18y ago
  If the parent poster is correct to point out some flaws in the original article, what makes you think I am not correct when I point out some flaws in the parent poster's comment? However, I do agree with you that words and ideologies have meaning at some point. I just think that the supposed meaning often differs; usually even for those who have subscribed to a certain ideology. Taking about ideologies: Try to read the original article with open eyes. Some of his points do not just apply to the Libertartian position, in particular, but to ideologies, in general. Even if he misunderstand or over-emphasized some details -- how can his general arguments be wrong? You would have to argue that Libertarism is not an ideology or dogmatic point of view to counter them. Additionally, even some of his concrete points seem logical: For instance, do you have the freedom to travel when all land is privately owned? Doesn't look like much freedom to me. If you now argue that this is not the Libertarian position, then please take the time and explain what the Libertarian position is. How much land should be owned by the public, represented by the government? What is the Libertarian position on the commons? Who is going to defend the commons against greed and private interests according to the Libertarian ideology?

jdminhbg 18y ago

> I didn't read the original article completely but your reply is just a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: Positions you don't agree with, are "no true Libertarian" positions. Is there such a thing as a Meta No True Scotsman Fallacy? If I say "George Bush proves Communism is a failure," is it ok for someone to point out that George Bush is not a communist? You can play the "No True Scotsman!" game forever, but at some point, words and ideologies have meanings. The linked article does not accurately reflect current mainstream (or otherwise) libertarian thought, and the parent poster is correct to point that out.

cschwarm 18y ago
If the parent poster is correct to point out some flaws in the original article, what makes you think I am not correct when I point out some flaws in the parent poster's comment? However, I do agree with you that words and ideologies have meaning at some point. I just think that the supposed meaning often differs; usually even for those who have subscribed to a certain ideology. Taking about ideologies: Try to read the original article with open eyes. Some of his points do not just apply to the Libertartian position, in particular, but to ideologies, in general. Even if he misunderstand or over-emphasized some details -- how can his general arguments be wrong? You would have to argue that Libertarism is not an ideology or dogmatic point of view to counter them. Additionally, even some of his concrete points seem logical: For instance, do you have the freedom to travel when all land is privately owned? Doesn't look like much freedom to me. If you now argue that this is not the Libertarian position, then please take the time and explain what the Libertarian position is. How much land should be owned by the public, represented by the government? What is the Libertarian position on the commons? Who is going to defend the commons against greed and private interests according to the Libertarian ideology?